A PAT model of flow antecedents in CMEs. C.M. Finneran, P. Zhang.

Csikszentmihalyi’s ideas on flow theory have been widely applied in studies of user experiences in computer-mediated environments (CMEs). In this paper the authors assert that a failure to reassess the original conceptualizations of flow theory when applying it to CMEs has resulted in inconsistency and ambiguity. The authors focus on the distinction between task (the main goal of the activity) and artefact (the tool for accomplishing the activity). Speaking of existing studies the authors note:

“The tools or artefacts were not taken into much consideration in studying flow because it is assumed that they are well mastered by the people who experience flow."

Of course this observation need not be restricted to CMEs – it is equally applicable to any activity where an individual has not mastered the use of the required tools. The authors propose a Person, Artefact, Task (PAT) framework to encapsulate this distinction and address the added complexity introduced by CMEs. They further divide personal characteristics into trait (effectively unchanging characteristics) and state (dynamically changing ‘mood’).

In their discussion of person-task, the authors observe:

“Whether flow occurs may have to do with at which level of granularity the person is focused and what their attitude and skills are toward that level.”

Therefore, like the concepts of skill and challenge in flow theory, task is also a matter of individual perception. Thus to maximise the possibility of flow, the environment must be tailored to the individual (re. learning environments – to what extent do externally defined learning outcomes “the task” match the learner’s perception of the task?).

Based on their model, the authors construct a set of propositions:

1) Assuming all of the other components are the same, a person is more likely to experience flow if s/he has traits of an autotelic (internally driven) nature and high exploratory behaviour, playfulness and absorption.

2) Assuming all of the other components are the same, a person is more likely to experience flow if his/her current state is conducive to absorption, time distortion, and loss of self-consciousness.

3) Assuming all of the other components are the same, a person is more likely to experience flow if the artefact has certain characteristics leading to telepresence (experience of presence in the CME), such as vividness (the breadth or the number of senses involved and the depth or the degree of involvement) and responsiveness.

4) Assuming all of the other components are the same, a person is more likely to experience flow if the task is more goal-oriented, autonomous (the user determines how to accomplish the task), enables more variety (has many ways to be completed), and at the appropriate level of complexity.

5) Assuming all of the other components are the same, a person is more likely to experience flow if there is a clear fit between task and the artefact (cognitive fit and task-technology fit).

6) Assuming all of the other components are the same, a person is more likely to experience flow if s/he has clear task goals, a balance between challenge and the skills of the task, a sense of control of doing the task, and adequate feedback on the task.

7) Assuming all of the other components are the same, a person is more likely to experience flow if s/he has high PEOU (perceived ease of use) of the artefact.

8) Assuming all of the other components are the same, with complex tasks, it is more likely that a person experiences flow when the artefact supporting the tasks has high PEOU, or is transparent. With less complex tasks, it is more likely that if a person experiences flow, s/he will perceive the artefact as having a high challenge.